Originally posted by papa ... maybe this is not a big issue,since all engines are now V8,same angle,and maybe their weight is the samebut even the slightest difference is important in F1...

The engines are not an issue now, since they have a quite high minimum weight, and they also have a centre of gravity restriction, the max. rev limit, plus other restrictive similarities inside them. Engines are no longer a direct differentiator IMO, although cooling efficiency might be a differentiator.

Originally posted by Melbourne Park The engines are not an issue now, since they have a quite high minimum weight, and they also have a centre of gravity restriction, the max. rev limit, plus other restrictive similarities inside them. Engines are no longer a direct differentiator IMO, although cooling efficiency might be a differentiator.

To broadly state that the engines are not an issue now is really underestimating their importance especially for 2008 and beyond.

Actually the biggest differentiator for the engine is power delivery, especially in the absence of TC this has become even more important as throttle application ease for the driver has a direct correlation to the 'smoothness' of the engines torque curve. This is where the engine technicians are spending most of their time.

So although most of the engines are pushing out the same level of power, same revs (as dictated by the FIA), etc; with the removal of TC the engines have now become of greater importance in terms of the cars overall performance, and this is down to the relative ease of power delivery which although can be and has been addressed through some novel suspension geometry adjustments at the rear of the cars, the biggest gain will be from smooth power delivery from the engines.

Consider the following - a peaky torque curve will lead to not only slower exits out of corners but also lead to excessive wheel spin and higher levels of tyre wear, not ideal for the in laps of a GP before a pit stop. This is where many teams have been focussing and also where rival teams are determining the performance of other teams, which is during their in laps. Ferrari has been seen to have an advantage here.

So to state that "engines are not an issue now", is not quite right. Yes there is less ability to develop the engines due to FIA restrictions, but the absence of TC has swung the development budget of teams back towards the engines.

Cooling efficiency has always been an area for development; decreasing the cooling requirements will lead to a tightening of the sidepods (among other aspects) and a decrease in drag, hence top speed and aero stability increases also. This has not and will not change. One must look at the F1 car as a package, not as a bunch of discrete components. Everything works together and has a flow on effect. So yes the engines are still an issue for a many number of reasons.

Aero however is still king in car development as it has been for a number of years, but only because of the other variables which dictate the direction and flexibility of aero design.

Originally posted by Italiano Tifoso So to state that "engines are not an issue now", is not quite right. Yes there is less ability to develop the engines due to FIA restrictions, but the absence of TC has swung the development budget of teams back towards the engines.

Aero however is still king in car development as it has been for a number of years.

Fair enough. Common ECU has hit all teams, even to a small degree McLaren.

I think the accent on torque occurred when they limited the revs.

Also, TC is an issue, but the issue has always been that when TC worked, you were foregoing power. So whenever TC happened, things were sub optimal. That's not an engines issue either. That line in the sand is still there, when power delivery is sub optimal, but if it happens, the driver will be more involved than before because there's no TC. Sure delivery is important - but I am dubious that torque curves will change much at all. I presume that the engines will perform between the teams much the same as each other. I've suggested teams would have multiple engine maps for different parts of the circuit, but was pretty much ridiculed for suggesting that.

Engines are all about the same right now, everything has been written by the FIA, even minimum weight... If a car has better behavior regarding traction it's not because it has a smoother/better engine, but mainly because it has a better weight distribution comnbined with a very fine aero balance.

Originally posted by Melbourne Park Fair enough. Common ECU has hit all teams, even to a small degree McLaren.

I think the accent on torque occurred when they limited the revs.

Also, TC is an issue, but the issue has always been that when TC worked, you were foregoing power. So whenever TC happened, things were sub optimal. That's not an engines issue either. That line in the sand is still there, when power delivery is sub optimal, but if it happens, the driver will be more involved than before because there's no TC. Sure delivery is important - but I am dubious that torque curves will change much at all. I presume that the engines will perform between the teams much the same as each other. I've suggested teams would have multiple engine maps for different parts of the circuit, but was pretty much ridiculed for suggesting that.

Actually the accent on torque first occured when they limited the cylinders, going from V10 to V8. The V8 is a much more peaky engine which caused significant problems for power delivery, corner speed, tyre life, etc. Limiting the revs stopped the power war and thus lead to a torque war instead.

TC working was not seen to be sub optimal as it was in direct relation to the skills of the drivers, if a driver could achieve better power delivery with their right foot then the electronics could then in that case TC would be sub optimal. Judging by the outcry from many drivers when TC was removed i think the TC approach was actually optimizing the package. I understand your thinking here but what i think you mean is that the more TC is required the less balance is being achieved for a particular car. This is true but good TC allows you to push to limit consistently.

Torque curves will change and have changed even during the winter testing period, a number of teams highlighted the requirement to achieve this in the non TC era.

The engine mapping flexibility will come down to the MES unit and what this allows, we do know that there is at least 2 broad levels of engine mapping already in the system, one for power and one for acceleration but beyond this not a lot is known.

What is clear however is the more flexibility and tuning allowed via the ECU in engine mapping the less requirements there are for the engine technicians to achieve smoother power delivery mechanically, one or the other needs to take place to excel in this area.

Engines are all about the same right now, everything has been written by the FIA, even minimum weight... If a car has better behavior regarding traction it's not because it has a smoother/better engine, but mainly because it has a better weight distribution comnbined with a very fine aero balance.

Given the evidence available to all of us (not the nickname), i would have expected those who know a little about F1 to have the same opinion regarding Ferrari's performance during testing. I guess the first 3 races will determine whether my opinion is correct.

Greater aero balance is important in high speed corners, with weight distribution having greater importance in low speed corners as well as the torque curve (power delivery) of the engine itself. To discount the importance of engine performance so haphazardly really is a brash move especially in 2008.

Aero balance has little value in the slow speed corners so that leaves according to you only weight distribution... Weight distribution is less important in 2008 as Ferrari's weight distribution is widely known up and down the paddock after the FIA's technical dossier fumble.

Seeing that most teams now know and have adopted this to gain better use of the bridgestone tyres, why is Ferrari still ahead? Sorry that is just my opinion that Ferrari is ahead. Maybe after the first few races when Ferrari show their speed we can pick up this conversation to determine where the advantage is.

I'm not at all stating the advantage is solely within the power delivery of the engine itself, as you can see from my prior post i believe it to be a package of parameters that leads to the overall performance advantage. However i am not silly enough to discount a very important aspect of car performance and development such as advancements in engine power delivery.

Also consider this...if all the engines are so identical as you said then why didn't the teams all agree to a single engine supplier for the whole grid? Maybe they know something you dont, like maybe...and i'm just throwing this out there...maybe all engines are not equal???

Why do Ferrari customer engines cost more then those supplied by Renault? Why did Adrian Newey make a big song and dance about not wanting the Ferrari engines but instead the Renault unit for their 2007 Red Bull racer?...if they are all the same whats the difference? I don't think Newey cared about team budget, if he did he could of asked for less then $8M per season...

I can tell you the difference between the Renault and Ferrari units, or at least the difference Newey was concerned about, and that was the cooling requirements and hence the aero limitations in his designs.

However other parties within Red Bull wanted the Ferrari unit because of the superior power. This is just a side note for you to consider, some useful and interesting information if you like but more importantly to debunk your theory that all the engines are the same and that there is no advantage to be had anymore on the engine front.

Its been fun, but i better get back to work. Looking forward to the new season.

Originally posted by Italiano Tifoso Why do Ferrari customer engines cost more then those supplied by Renault? Why did Adrian Newey make a big song and dance about not wanting the Ferrari engines but instead the Renault unit for their 2007 Red Bull racer?...if they are all the same whats the difference? I don't think Newey cared about team budget, if he did he could of asked for less then $8M per season...

I can tell you the difference between the Renault and Ferrari units, or at least the difference Newey was concerned about, and that was the cooling requirements and hence the aero limitations in his designs.

However other parties within Red Bull wanted the Ferrari unit because of the superior power. This is just a side note for you to consider, some useful and interesting information if you like but more importantly to debunk your theory that all the engines are the same and that there is no advantage to be had anymore on the engine front.

Its been fun, but i better get back to work. Looking forward to the new season.

What garbage. The pity is, you don't even recognize the poor service that Red Bull got from Ferrari with their engines cooling issues. Incidentally, Newey is more than competent on aerodynamics. And so is his staff. The Renault case is a simple example that a team quite willing to spend lots on an engine, was happy to buy the Renault unit. That's testimony to the equality of engines now. They went to the huge trouble of progamming another ECU, when all they had to do was put in an engine they were intimate with. They chose not to.

It's also evidenced about what the teams say about engines - that they are all pretty much the same now. You should read what Mauro Forghieri says about current F1 engines, how totally boring the whole engine thing now is, I presume you've heard of him. If what you say is correct, the Toro Rosso should have been dominant over the RBR3 on low aero tracks. It wasn't.

The facts are that if teams don't do everything available on their engines, they'll go slower. But if they do do everything available, it will not make them much faster than a team that does say 95% of the available work. With the current engine rules, the expenditure / benefit curve peaks quite early and becomes almost flat. Ferrari can afford to do 99%, and not restrict resources from other more productive areas of car improvement. And you can bet that with the top 6 teams, their engine performances will be very similar. But that the ability for the drive wheels to deliver that power will vary much much much more between the teams than will engine performance. And they way to fix those problems is with aero and mechanical development.

Originally posted by Melbourne Park What garbage. The pity is, you don't even recognize the poor service that Red Bull got from Ferrari with their engines cooling issues. Incidentally, Newey is more than competent on aerodynamics. And so is his staff. The Renault case is a simple example that a team quite willing to spend lots on an engine, was happy to buy the Renault unit. That's testimony to the equality of engines now. They went to the huge trouble of progamming another ECU, when all they had to do was put in an engine they were intimate with. They chose not to.

It's also evidenced about what the teams say about engines - that they are all pretty much the same now. You should read what Mauro Forghieri says about current F1 engines, how totally boring the whole engine thing now is, I presume you've heard of him. If what you say is correct, the Toro Rosso should have been dominant over the RBR3 on low aero tracks. It wasn't.

The facts are that if teams don't do everything available on their engines, they'll go slower. But if they do do everything available, it will not make them much faster than a team that does say 95% of the available work. With the current engine rules, the expenditure / benefit curve peaks quite early and becomes almost flat. Ferrari can afford to do 99%, and not restrict resources from other more productive areas of car improvement. And you can bet that with the top 6 teams, their engine performances will be very similar. But that the ability for the drive wheels to deliver that power will vary much much much more between the teams than will engine performance. And they way to fix those problems is with aero and mechanical development.

I think you have missed the point yet again Melbourne Park, no one was debating the level of service Ferrari gave Red Bull, but rather as you confirmed it was the cooling requirements of the Ferrari unit which was not given to Red Bull by Ferrari in comparison to Renault who may have offered more assistance here. But again if all the engines are the same (as you believe), then so must be their cooling requirements. I think you are not giving Newey enough credit to suggest he needed more help from a rival team regarding the aero of his own design then what Ferrari was giving him.

My point is simply that Newey being an aerodynamicist saw the advantage in the Renault unit over and above the Ferrari one, that can't be debated, i was not commenting on Newey's competences but rather that as an aerodynamicist, if all the engines were the same why the big drama from Newey to adopt the Renault unit? This cannot be based on service alone but rather the aero limitations due to the Ferrari engines cooling requirements. This was the key comment from Newey and if you look at the current Ferrari design compared to the Renault, which team has greater levels of cooling apendiges on their body work??? The answer is for all to see.

As for your ECU comment...you will find that Ferrari and Renault used the same system, so not a big work load here to change the engines over, certainly not a "huge trouble" as you suggested.

As for your comments regarding Mauro Forghieri, yes he is well known, he is commenting on the many FIA restrictions which have shifted focus away from engines to aero, and yes the engines are very similar to each other which is a product of the FIA rules, but by no means are they identical, if they were and there was no room for development he would be out of the job.

Here is an extract from an interview with Newey regarding the engines of 2007, not 2008.

Q: Given that the engine regulations are much more restrictive now than then, how much value does that extra data add?

AN: Engine development in the hardware sense is obviously restricted with the frozen regulations, but there’s still an awful lot in the way the engine is operated that is crucially important, and that’s where I think our relationship with Renault will pay dividends.

That's straight from the horses mouth regarding engine development potential. The interview also goes on with Newey siting the number of differences between the units, most notably in the cooling requirements.

As for your point on Torro Rosso and Red Bull; Torro Rosso is the sister team of Red Bull, i would have assumed you knew that, in which case you would also know that Torro Rosso was a number of evolutions of car development behind Red Bull as Red Bull supply them with the entire car, from chassis to aero. But the one aspect of the car which is different is the engine. In actual fact the Torro Rosso car is a year old Red Bull for the most part with a number of refinements; regardless its aero effciency is somewhat behind the Red Bull.

So to prove a point lets look at the top speed trap times on a power circuit or low aero circuit as you suggested...Monza. Vettel was consistently 3 kph faster at every intermediate then the next best Red Bull car (Webber). Now this does not tell the full story obviously but it is indicative that for a car effectively carrying an older version of Red Bulls own aero, that even given the loss in aero efficiency to the Red Bull they had faster speed trap results. The engine difference may, just may have played a part in this dont you think?

So although the Torro Rosso was not as good overall compared to the Red Bull, in the area where engine performance can be seen the most and between two manufacturers who develop their engines to their fullest capacity, at a low aero track the Torro Rosso was faster in the straight line... Blows your theory out of the water. Especially once you consider that Red Bull was using up to date Renault spec engines, whereas the Torro Rosso outfit were contractually receiving a prior evolution of the Ferrari engine, and yet still faster on the low aero circuit...hmmmm

Let's gain some clarification here, no one is saying that engine performance is the only measure of performance, my comments were in response to yours, in that and i quote..."engines are not an issue now."

My point was simply they are more an issue in 2008 then in 2007 and that their importance in the entire package should not be discounted due to the significant knock on effects they create both for aero efficiency, tyre wear and of course the combination of this is overall car speed. If it were no longer an issue as you stated, then the top manufacturers, Ferrari, McLaren, BMW, Renault, Toyota, etc would re allocate all their spending from engines to either aero or mechanical R&D...funnily enough, they don't so therefore they are an issue unless all these teams just like to spend money for no reward...before you start, leave Toyota alone because they were nice enough to setup the retirement funds of Mike Gascoyne and Ralfy Boy.

If you don't agree with the above which was the core aspect of my response before you decided to take it somewhat off course (for obvious reasons) then state your reasoning. But i take it from your earlier response that you do agree.

As you stated "The facts are that if teams don't do everything available on their engines, they'll go slower. But if they do do everything available, it will not make them much faster than a team that does say 95% of the available work."

This is very true, an increase in engine performance will not make a team much faster, but i think we can all agree it will make then faster. The most important point to consider is that TC masked a lot of the power delivery problems with many units, now however with TC gone engine power delivery is even more important, hence you will expect to see more expenditure on engines in 2007 winter testing and throughout 2008 then you did during the TC era as the expenditure pay back is far greater then before.

I don't think this can be debated. If you try to debate it then that would be as you say, total 'garbage'.

Unless you get your facts closer to the truth, I'm going to use the ignore button.

For example: if all the engines are the same (as you believe) I did not say that.

Rosso outfit were contractually receiving a prior evolution of the Ferrari engine The homologation rules mean that one cannot run a non-homologated engine. Differences between homologated engines are far, far, far less than in the development days.

As for your ECU comment...you will find that Ferrari and Renault used the same system, so not a big work load here to change the engines over, certainly not a "huge trouble" as you suggested.The brand of ECU is not the issue - its the programming of the ECU. RBR had to program their entire ECU for the Renault engine; they would not have had to do anything extra had they kept the TR software. Renault also had to work on the interfaces from RBR's programming of their ECU. Ferrari have been vocal this year about the pains of having to program to a new ECU - its not a trivial excercise. Simply put, if you don't do it, the car won't work. But when its done, its done.

In actual fact the Torro Rosso car is a year old Red Bull for the most part with a number of refinements You were talking about a supposed Monza speed (who knows what the variables were) - in 2007, the cars were just the same, but for the engine issues. The paint jobs were also different. For evidence, do some research. Or go read Spyker's blueprints, IP taken from the Toro Rosso firm in 2007, which showed they were manufacturing front wings from blueprints which had RBR3 stamped on the blueprints (that's the '07 car). (And no - Spyker is not in trouble with the Italian police for taking those blueprints). Toro Rosso will get the RBR4 design when they go to Europe. It's Honda who give the last year's body to Super Aguri. 3 KMH is little difference - when KR and FM have different top speeds, it doesn't necessarily mean their engines were performing differently.

And for goodness sakes - Cooling slots - if the car has them - don't tell you everything about an F1 car's cooling.

That'll do - I'll reply if your facts are right, otherwise its cheers from me.

Funny how you still restrict yourself from addressing the core of the issue yet again, this being that according to you, "engines are not an issue now.".

You can laugh all you like, its healthy for you. But the evidence proves your assertion to be totally incorrect. But you know that, that's why your comments don't try and defend this ridiculous statement of yours.

Maybe the question i should be asking you is why according to you "engines are not an issue now." The only way i can see this being true is if all the engines are the same, or as close to each other as to make no difference to performance. This is what you have inferred through many of your posts, now you choose to do a backflip on the comment and decided to argue semantics...interesting.

So back to your comment, hopefully third times a charm, what do you mean by ..."engines are not an issue now."

Read your prior posts carefully and try not to contradict yourself, nor site peripheral arguments to escape your own stupidity.

I was trying to bring the thread back on track to your above comment, so i will address your other statements later, for the moment try and keep on course...if you have this capacity.

Originally posted by Italiano Tifoso Funny how you still restrict yourself from addressing the core of the issue yet again, this being that according to you, "engines are not an issue now.".

You can laugh all you like, its healthy for you. But the evidence proves your assertion to be totally incorrect. But you know that, that's why your comments don't try and defend this ridiculous statement of yours.

Maybe the question i should be asking you is why according to you "engines are not an issue now." The only way i can see this being true is if all the engines are the same, or as close to each other as to make no difference to performance. This is what you have inferred through many of your posts, now you choose to do a backflip on the comment and decided to argue semantics...interesting.

So back to your comment, hopefully third times a charm, what do you mean by ..."engines are not an issue now."

Read your prior posts carefully and try not to contradict yourself, nor site peripheral arguments to escape your own stupidity.

I was trying to bring the thread back on track to your above comment, so i will address your other statements later, for the moment try and keep on course...if you have this capacity.

I thought so. The 8th on my ignore list, after the same number of years. Goodbye.

Originally posted by Melbourne Park IF, are you serious? I think you are deliberately being wrong.

Unless you get your facts closer to the truth, I'm going to use the ignore button.

For example: if all the engines are the same (as you believe) I did not say that.

Rosso outfit were contractually receiving a prior evolution of the Ferrari engine The homologation rules mean that one cannot run a non-homologated engine. Differences between homologated engines are far, far, far less than in the development days.

As for your ECU comment...you will find that Ferrari and Renault used the same system, so not a big work load here to change the engines over, certainly not a "huge trouble" as you suggested.The brand of ECU is not the issue - its the programming of the ECU. RBR had to program their entire ECU for the Renault engine; they would not have had to do anything extra had they kept the TR software. Renault also had to work on the interfaces from RBR's programming of their ECU. Ferrari have been vocal this year about the pains of having to program to a new ECU - its not a trivial excercise. Simply put, if you don't do it, the car won't work. But when its done, its done.

In actual fact the Torro Rosso car is a year old Red Bull for the most part with a number of refinements You were talking about a supposed Monza speed (who knows what the variables were) - in 2007, the cars were just the same, but for the engine issues. The paint jobs were also different. For evidence, do some research. Or go read Spyker's blueprints, IP taken from the Toro Rosso firm in 2007, which showed they were manufacturing front wings from blueprints which had RBR3 stamped on the blueprints (that's the '07 car). (And no - Spyker is not in trouble with the Italian police for taking those blueprints). Toro Rosso will get the RBR4 design when they go to Europe. It's Honda who give the last year's body to Super Aguri. 3 KMH is little difference - when KR and FM have different top speeds, it doesn't necessarily mean their engines were performing differently.

And for goodness sakes - Cooling slots - if the car has them - don't tell you everything about an F1 car's cooling.

That'll do - I'll reply if your facts are right, otherwise its cheers from me.

Now for your statements here, lets try and keep this separate shall we.

The homologation rules - first i think you just really like the word homologation, but thats a side issue. Yes the homologation rules leave little room for engine development/refinement, but is this an advantage to a customer team considering Ferrari will still make permissible changes to their unit which in effect now wont be passed onto the customer team until the next year? Previously teams updated units every few races, so a customer engine was at worst 3 races behind that of the supplier, now although the parameters that can be altered and the performance gain is less the time between different specs has now increased. So on a performance level customer teams are still at a disadvantage. But this has no relevance to the argument regarding as you stated engines not being an issue now with respect to the cars performance gains.

ECU - The brand of the ECU is the biggest issue, changing the ECU is like asking a person to learn a new language and then converse in this language to someone who doesn't speak it.

Not having to change the ECU means that the engineers did not have to learn how to talk to the engine all over again as the engine was designed for the same ECU, what was needed was to extract the same performance from the engine using the same language and the same tool being the magneti marelli ECU. Thus the engine mapping may have changed but the engine mapping is constantly changing even with the same engine. The brand of the ECU is the entire issue as the programming process is usually entirely different, in other words written in different code, a different language.

So what is harder, learning a new language or mapping a new engine with a language (code) you are already used to when the engine also uses the same ECU? What has occured this year is a double hit, it is a new ECU, with a new language that has to be used for engines not designed for the new ECU. You can't compare this years ECU switch to that of Red Bulls in 2007 from Renault to Ferrari. Also again this has no impact on the point we were discussing regarding your comment..."engines are not an issue now."

Torro Rosso and Red Bull - I was using your example of a low aero circuit and the speed of the cars being a closer reflection of the engine performance, i never said that it was absolute with no other variables to be considered but it is perhaps the best opportunity to make the comparrison. But regardless for a team with an older version of the RB kit, they should not be faster then the parent company through the traps, this was clearly the case in Monza at every intermediate.

As for cooling slots, no they dont tell you everything but what we know is this; they in most cases are not welcome and cause aero inefficiency, so in other words you dont use cooling slots unless you need to. This was merely an observation to show you that if all engines were the same then all teams would have the same cooling characteristics. Thus the fact that they dont would suggest that engines are not all the same and are thus still an issue, which is opposed to your view which is "engines are not an issue now."

I hope that has provided some clarity for you, lets not argue semantics, i just want to get to the bottom of your statement and how credible you really believe it is.

Do you really stand by your position that, "engines are not an issue now."?

Perhaps you now agree that yes they are an issue and yes they are now more important in 2008 then they were in 2007 due to the non TC era. I know you find it hard to agree with me but try to accept the facts as they are.

Stating that you will "reply if the facts are right", might be a good get out of jail card to play but i fear you are not fooling anyone.

"engines are not an issue now." - Melbourne Park In the immortal words of Pauline Hanson and as much as it pains me to quote her..."please explain".Sorry had to do it.

Then the package must have been unmitigatedly superior in everything else if Rubens could score with inferior tyres 29 pts more than first non-Ferrari driver.

clearly the package was better. That is exactly what I said. I made no assertion about the tyres. All I said was that from the numbers you posted - ie the wdc points - you can make no such assertion. It could be that the tyres were the only area in which they were better - or it could be that the tyres, the aero, the engine etc were all a little bit better, or it could be anything really. The net numbers reflect the net package and that is all they tell you anything about

Italiano Tifoso, my advise is to do some more research. First up, go and read up on what homologation is and its effects. Then follow that reading with what the common ECU is about. And then find out what restricted engine revolutions are.

Originally posted by Italiano Tifoso So to prove a point lets look at the top speed trap times on a power circuit or low aero circuit as you suggested...Monza. Vettel was consistently 3 kph faster at every intermediate then the next best Red Bull car (Webber). Now this does not tell the full story obviously but it is indicative that for a car effectively carrying an older version of Red Bulls own aero, that even given the loss in aero efficiency to the Red Bull they had faster speed trap results. The engine difference may, just may have played a part in this dont you think?

So although the Torro Rosso was not as good overall compared to the Red Bull, in the area where engine performance can be seen the most and between two manufacturers who develop their engines to their fullest capacity, at a low aero track the Torro Rosso was faster in the straight line... Blows your theory out of the water. Especially once you consider that Red Bull was using up to date Renault spec engines, whereas the Torro Rosso outfit were contractually receiving a prior evolution of the Ferrari engine, and yet still faster on the low aero circuit...hmmmm

At Monza 2007, Webber qualified 11th, Vettel 16th. Vettel fastest time: 1:25:313. Webber's fastest time: 1:24:824. Both cars are the same. So maybe the Renault engine is just far superior. Half a second a lap is a lot of power.

Originally posted by Flex Italiano Tifoso, my advise is to do some more research. First up, go and read up on what homologation is and its effects. Then follow that reading with what the common ECU is about. And then find out what restricted engine revolutions are.

The guy wants to prove that everything that comes from Ferrari is far better from whatever else.

that makes no difference, what about people who had no opportunity to read about last weeks testing? we have to sort through 10 pages of bullshit just to find it. I dont see why you cant just go and make another thread and argue yourselves to death in there. NOW, does anytbody know what days mclaren were testing in menorca? and does anyone have any information reguarding that?

Originally posted by kids like ash that makes no difference, what about people who had no opportunity to read about last weeks testing? we have to sort through 10 pages of bullshit just to find it. I dont see why you cant just go and make another thread and argue yourselves to death in there. NOW, does anytbody know what days mclaren were testing in menorca? and does anyone have any information reguarding that?

Sorry ashy, most of us check the testing info on or around the day of testing, not weeks after they have finished.

Not sure when McLaren are testing in Menorca, although no info tends to come from these tests, even the photos of the aero being used is hard to come by.

yes i saw the footage but it was panned out and you could not determine much from the footage. It was actually the best footage anyone has gotten from a Menorca test to date and still nothing could be determined.

Ive brought this back up for everyone to see again because its about TESTING! If you want to discuss other topics - either find an existing thread or if one doesnt exist - start a new one.

Not everyone can get their testing news right away. Its only fair that they dont have to wade through pages of off topic discussion to find what they are looking for. Debate is welcome, but please do that in an ontopic thread. Thanks.

actually thats the portuguese version of the article, not the translated one.

The translated one is about...well...4 or 5 pages back. Sorry, i am partly to blame for that.

Very interesting though, it states that Ferrari are ahead which confirms my initial thinking from the winter testing and video threads by Yossi on you tube.

There are a few corners at Barca where you can really see and hear the difference. Ferrari is able to get on the power not only a lot earlier through the last chicane but they never seem to actually be totally off the power, while the others clearly have to lift for at least half a second.

The speed at which they get back on the power and the stability of the car over the curbs is impressive. The Mclaren does seem more agile though which is evident through their ease to correct oversteer mid corner without upsetting the car too much. But this is not the fastest way around the track.

It almost seemed like the Ferrari was too stable, as if they were not even pushing very hard. If this is the case then 2008 should be renamed 2002.

According to my records these tests are still happening:
end of Feb/early March: Menorca (BMW for a two day straight line test)
04-06 March: Jerez (Honda only?)
6th of March: Fiorano, Ferrari - Luca Badoer
??-?? March: Silverstone?

Originally posted by Milt According to my records these tests are still happening:end of Feb/early March: Menorca (BMW for a two day straight line test)

I think that maybe such straight line runs do not count as tests when adding up the testing mileages? I think they may be viewed as being the same as wind tunnel or dynamometer work which are not counted as testing miles?

Originally posted by AFCA RBR's problems regarding to the gearbox definately seem to be over. In the factory they've surpassed well over 3300 km with the new one and on track no problems with the mechanism have yet ocurred.

A Red Bull engineer said that after 3000 km the inside of the gearbox still looks as new. Temperatures and pressures are always in the green area when the mechanisms are working.

The drivers felt comfortable in the the RB4 straight away. Particularly the tall Webber expressed his contentness saying he can do a 100 laps without stepping out of the car having bumps and bruises. His hips are no longer squashed in.

The massive shift of balance to the front of the car makes for less stress on the reartyres. Despite Webber's aggresive driving style he's able to drive constant laptimes.

Newey expects a proper step forward from the Melbourne package.

Red Bull seems to be on par with Williams over the long run. The two of them are slightly in front of Renault but slightly behind BMW Sauber.

- The problem relating the unbalance of BMW Sauber greatly had to do with the interaction between the mechanics and the aerdoynamics as well as the shift in aerodynamic weight whilst cornering. At the Jerez test it could clearly be seen that, coming out of a corner, the McLaren drivers drove over a big bump as if it weren't there whereas the BMW Sauber drivers had to correct the car. Rampf stated he has no regrets over the radical looking F1.08 though, actually saying there were no experiments and that it's an evolution from last year's car.

Originally posted by AFCA The engineers from Williams are silent about the cause of the problem but it appears that there's a greater load on the front wing this year because the slimmed-down car offers a greater margin to play with the ballast. Apperantly there are clearly more tungsten plates in the frontwing than was the case with the FW29. This could lead to structural problems at high loads.

The people that doubted this were right. It turns out the mounting pillars of the frontwing were constructed too light and fragile. The work the carbon department at Williams had to do to solve the problem was carried out twice as fast (1 week instead of 2). It did mean though that the work on spare chassis' was postponed as well as the Melbourne aerodynamic package, which was introduced one week later than planned (it came at Barcelona instead of Jerez).

- Renault is said to be working on a rear suspension system that should improve their one lap performance as well as traction out of corners. It should debut at Barcelona during the first collective in season test in April (14 - 16).

Di Grassi conducted a straight line test at the Idiada circuit (not too far from Barcelona) last Sunday by the way.